3 ms·

I don't think most people have issues with non-mainstream positions or interest groups, or at least to the degree of their being banned. What's at stake here i

I don't think most people have issues with non-mainstream positions or interest groups, or at least to the degree of their being banned. What's at stake here is Facebook's role in amplifying content that is at best misleading and at worst outright falsehoods. We've got a situation in this country where half the population believes the election was fraudulently stolen from Donald Trump and a significant portion believes that COVID vaccines are dangerous. FWIW, I think it's perfectly fine for people to make those claims and put them in the town square, but Facebook doesn't just provide the venue, they amplify and drive users to that content, encourage them to engage with it, and then reshare it to their own networks, putting a veneer of truth and acceptability on it. EDIT: I said "half the country", I should have said "half of the republican party" - apologies for the mistake.

generalizations 5y ago
> Facebook's role in amplifying content that is at best misleading and at worst outright falsehoods That's nothing but an excuse.
- mattzito 5y ago
  I'm not 100% sure I understand your point, but I take it to mean that you're saying that Facebook's role is just an excuse to ban content I (or some groups) don't like? If there was a true marketplace of ideas, everyone would have an equal playing field to build their own audiences, sway people to their positions, debate and discuss. But that's not how facebook works - engagement drives eyeballs, eyeballs drive revenue, and so Facebook optimizes for engagement, which itself happens to optimize for the most extreme and dramatic and horrifying positions. "Were the COVID vaccines hurried through approvals too fast?" doesn't drive as much engagement as "Covid vaccines are killing thousands, data shows".
  - generalizations 5y ago
    Yeah, sorry, I wasn't super clear there. I meant to emphasize the characterization of the content: "at best misleading and at worst outright falsehoods". Calling it that makes it easy to say it should be banned - but remember that the wuhan lab leak hypothesis was characterized exactly the same way. And that turned out to be acknowledged as plausible and even likely. If you're pro-censorship here, then you're in favor of banning speech about things that could be true and important.
    - mattzito 5y ago
      Oh, sure, I think the problems in these kinds of discussions is that each reader has their own mental picture of the type of content that is being described, which colors the discussion. I think the wuhan lab leak hypothesis is a good example - I don't think anyone serious or in a position of power was arguing that the statement, "It is possible that COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak" should be banned or restricted. Some people said that was hasty or lacking evidnce, that's different, that's people's opinion about an opinion. But there were also people saying, "china intentionally released covid to kill americans" and calling it "the china flu" and encouraging aggression towards china. That's obviously much more inflammatory. I'm not even arguing THAT should necessarily qualify as an outright falsehood (though I don't think it's a helpful way to have a conversation about a complex subject). I'm talking about, "Covid vaccines are killing thousands, so you shouldn't take one". Or, "the election was stolen from donald trump". I'm also not really arguing for censorship here - I'm just arguing that Facebook is a net negative in that they algorithmically optimize for the most inflammatory, most aggressive content, with the side effects that it amplifies the least true content.
      - generalizations 5y ago
        > I don't think anyone serious or in a position of power was arguing that the statement, "It is possible that COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak" should be banned or restricted. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/facebook-lifts-ban-on-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-after-censoring-earlier-reports/ar-AAKqBIp https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/facebook-lifts-ban-on-w... > "The social media giant banned any content that asserted COVID-19 was man-made or manufactured in February but told Politico the decision has now been reversed." There was no distinction made between 'lab leak' and 'intentional leak' when censoring the conversation. To me, it's a great example of why censorship of these things should be nipped in the bud. There's plenty more examples if you ddg "lab leak theory".
sokoloff 5y ago
I don't believe it's anywhere close to half who believe the election was fraudulent. It's widely reported and talked about just like other fringe ideas, but it's surely not half of Americans who think that.
- gusgus01 5y ago
  I believe the current belief is that 50% of Republicans believe it. So if you extrapolate to the American Population you would be looking at about 50 million Americans who believe the election was stolen. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/24/republicans-2020-election-poll-trump-biden https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/24/republicans-...
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    So that's roughly 50 million / 331 million or 15.1%. Nothing close to 50%.

generalizations 5y ago

> Facebook's role in amplifying content that is at best misleading and at worst outright falsehoods That's nothing but an excuse.

mattzito 5y ago
I'm not 100% sure I understand your point, but I take it to mean that you're saying that Facebook's role is just an excuse to ban content I (or some groups) don't like? If there was a true marketplace of ideas, everyone would have an equal playing field to build their own audiences, sway people to their positions, debate and discuss. But that's not how facebook works - engagement drives eyeballs, eyeballs drive revenue, and so Facebook optimizes for engagement, which itself happens to optimize for the most extreme and dramatic and horrifying positions. "Were the COVID vaccines hurried through approvals too fast?" doesn't drive as much engagement as "Covid vaccines are killing thousands, data shows".
- generalizations 5y ago
  Yeah, sorry, I wasn't super clear there. I meant to emphasize the characterization of the content: "at best misleading and at worst outright falsehoods". Calling it that makes it easy to say it should be banned - but remember that the wuhan lab leak hypothesis was characterized exactly the same way. And that turned out to be acknowledged as plausible and even likely. If you're pro-censorship here, then you're in favor of banning speech about things that could be true and important.
  - mattzito 5y ago
    Oh, sure, I think the problems in these kinds of discussions is that each reader has their own mental picture of the type of content that is being described, which colors the discussion. I think the wuhan lab leak hypothesis is a good example - I don't think anyone serious or in a position of power was arguing that the statement, "It is possible that COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak" should be banned or restricted. Some people said that was hasty or lacking evidnce, that's different, that's people's opinion about an opinion. But there were also people saying, "china intentionally released covid to kill americans" and calling it "the china flu" and encouraging aggression towards china. That's obviously much more inflammatory. I'm not even arguing THAT should necessarily qualify as an outright falsehood (though I don't think it's a helpful way to have a conversation about a complex subject). I'm talking about, "Covid vaccines are killing thousands, so you shouldn't take one". Or, "the election was stolen from donald trump". I'm also not really arguing for censorship here - I'm just arguing that Facebook is a net negative in that they algorithmically optimize for the most inflammatory, most aggressive content, with the side effects that it amplifies the least true content.
    - generalizations 5y ago
      > I don't think anyone serious or in a position of power was arguing that the statement, "It is possible that COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak" should be banned or restricted. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/facebook-lifts-ban-on-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-after-censoring-earlier-reports/ar-AAKqBIp https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/facebook-lifts-ban-on-w... > "The social media giant banned any content that asserted COVID-19 was man-made or manufactured in February but told Politico the decision has now been reversed." There was no distinction made between 'lab leak' and 'intentional leak' when censoring the conversation. To me, it's a great example of why censorship of these things should be nipped in the bud. There's plenty more examples if you ddg "lab leak theory".

sokoloff 5y ago

I don't believe it's anywhere close to half who believe the election was fraudulent. It's widely reported and talked about just like other fringe ideas, but it's surely not half of Americans who think that.

gusgus01 5y ago
I believe the current belief is that 50% of Republicans believe it. So if you extrapolate to the American Population you would be looking at about 50 million Americans who believe the election was stolen. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/24/republicans-2020-election-poll-trump-biden https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/24/republicans-...
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  So that's roughly 50 million / 331 million or 15.1%. Nothing close to 50%.